P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10094 Su m m ar y Cal endar J I M M I E L EE W AL T ON Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant
v. DALLAS COUNTY S HERI FFL UPE VAL DEZ D efen da n t - A pp el l ee A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he N or t her n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 3: 08- C V
- 2166 B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * J i mmi e L e e Wa l t o n , T e x a s p r i s o n e r#1 4 8 2 0 0 3 , mo v e s t o p r o c e e di n f o r ma pauper i s ( I FP ) t o a ppealt he di sm i ss alof hi s 42 U . S. C . § 1983 c om pl ai ntas f rivol ou s p u rsuan tto 2 8 U . S . C . §§ 1915 ( e) ( 2) ( B ) an d 19 15A (b) . Th e di st ri ctcourt den i ed W al t on leave to p roceed IF P on a pp eal , cer t i f yi n g t h at th e app eali s not t ak e n i n go o d fait h. By m o vi ng f o rl e av e t o pr o c e e d I FP, W al t o n i s c hall e ngi ng th a t c e r tific a tio n . S ee B augh v. T aylor , 117 F . 3d197 , 2 02 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 7) . Our United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust13, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 10094

2 i nqui r y i nt o W al t on’ s goo d fai t h “ i s l i m it ed t o w het hert he appea li nvolves l egal p oin ts a rg u a b l e on the i r m erits (an dthe refore n ot f rivo l ou s). ” Ho w ar d v . Ki ng , 7 0 7 F .2d 2 1 5 , 2 2 0 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 3 ) (in te rn a l qu o ta tion m a rk s o m itted ). Be c a us e n e i t he rW a l t o n’ s I FP m o t i o n no rh i s b r i e f i n s up p o r to f

h i s I FP m o t i o n a ddr e s s t he r e as o ns f o rt he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s c e r t i f i c at i o n de c i s i on or t he ba s i s o f t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s di s m i s s al , it i s t he s am e a s if heha d no ta ppe al e d t he ju d g m e n t. S ee B ri n km an n v. D allas Cou n ty D epu ty S h erif f A bn er , 813 F. 2d 744, 7 4 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ); B a ug h , 117 F . 3d at 202. W al t on h as n otdem ons t r at ed t hat h e w ill ra is e an o n fr iv o lo u s is s u e o n a p p e a l. S ee How ard , 707 F . 2 d at 219- 20. A c c o r d in g ly , W a lto n ’ s m o tio n to p r o c e e dIF P is d e n ie d . SeeB augh , 117 F. 3d at 2 0 2 n .2 4 . B e c a u s e h is a p p e a l is fr iv o lo u s , seeHow ard , 7 0 7 F .2 da t 2 1 9 -2 0 , h is a p p e a l is d is m is s e d . S ee5 T H C IR . R . 42. 2. The di s t ri ctc o ur t ’ s di s m i s s alo f W al t o n’ s § 1 98 3 c o m pl ai nta nd the di s m i s s a l o f t hi s a p p e a l a s f r iv o l o us c o un t a s t wo s t r i ke s f o r p ur p os es of

28 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g). S ee Ade pegb a v. Ham m ons , 103 F . 3d383 , 387
- 88 (5t h C i r. 199 6) . W e cauti on W al t on t h at on ce h e a ccum u l ates t h ree s t ri kes, he m ay n ot proceed IFP i n an y civi lact i on or ap pea lf i l ed w h i l e he i s i n carcer a ted or det ai ned i n any fac i l i t y unl es s he “i s under i m m i nentdan gerof s er i ous physi c al inju ry .” § 1 9 1 5 (g). M OT I O N D E N I E D ; A P P E A L D I S MI S S E D ; S A N C T I O N WA R N I NG I S S UED .